Film Censorship

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I was bored/disagreed with the MPAA/BBFC so I started this thread.

 

I think film censorship sucks at it's current state sucks. I mean kids are not those "fragile little minds" some make them out to be. And some censorship decisions are just plain stupid. Why is Raiders of the Lost Ark a PG and the Godfather an R/18(in the UK).

OK, so Sonny Carleone is shot about 100 times, but how is that worse than a guy chopped up by a propeller or exploding heads?

 

Anyways here's my propesed system.

 

U- Universal. Anyone can see this. Nothing too offensive. Pretty much the same as G in America. Stuff like Finding Nemo, etc.

 

PG- The voilence, drugs, language and horrorific scenes are a lot stronger than in PGs these days. Profanity is only harmfull to a person if they don't know what it is. I watched Die Hard when I was about 9 and I knew what f*ck meant beforehand, so I didn't say it in front of those who might be offended. However most 7 year olds know what Sh*t means so that word is now perfecly acceptable here.

Kids know drugs are bad and aren't all that sensetive to voilence. Films now rated PG would be Pirates of the Carribean, Rush Hour, Hulk. Films that stay PG are Harry Potter, Princess Bride, etc.

 

12A/13A (depending on when you start high school)- Anyone under 12/13 can see it if accompained by an adult. Voilence is stronger still but nothing that won't disturb the younger teenage crowd. People of this age are also intelligent enough not to copy martial arts moves they see, etc.

Profanity is limitless becuase kids start high school at this time so they will hear words like that all the time. The word "f*ck" is only acceptable at this level onwards. Kids will also start learning about sex at this time in thier lives so sex/nudity would be on the "lower R-rated" level. Films now rated 12/13A: Phone Booth, Schindler's List, Swordfish, The Matrix, Face/Off, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Films which remain this level: Master and Commander, Forrest Gump.

 

16A- Minors can see this if with an adult. Anything is acceptable at this level apart from hardcore pornography, or excpetionally nasty rape or voilence. Films rated this level now: Die Hard, Freddy vs. Jason, Saving Private Ryan, Eyes Wide Shut, Clockwork Orange.

 

R- Ristricted to 18+. Anything goes. Stuff like Cannibal Holocaust, Ichi the Killer, Irriversible and porn movies.

 

 

if you bothered to read all that please comment.

[jon_hill987]

Its hard to really comment on this subject as a whole because in different countrys people have different opinions on what is accepteble, for example it seems to me that in the US, the censors are ok with mindless voilence as long as nobody says any rude words or shows any part of their anatomy between the neck and ankles, whereas in the UK swearing an nudity are not considered as bad, but the voilence is.

 

But I do have to agree with you that the current system is not that good. I think that there should be no ratings at all and that they should be replaced with information about whats in the film so people can decide for themselves if it is sutable for them/their children.

 

Oh and what is it with blanking out vomit on shows like "shocking behaviour caught on tape"? are they shown during the day in the US or something?

[ET Warrior]

I don't have any problem with the current rating system for movies. Granted, I'm 19 and it doesn't affect me in any way anymore, but even when I was little I never once thought that movies had stupid ratings and that I was being kept from seeing something I should see.

[jon_hill987]

I wasn't saying that kids should see films like Blade or whatever, just that it should be up to their parents to decide and when they are 16 or something you should be able to decide for youself, I mean you can sign up to the army, get married, have sex but not watch some films? its stupid.

[Doomie]

Wait, so when you're sixteen, you may do hardcore things but not watch them? that's indeed very stupid. and in my country, violence is pretty ok. I even saw saving private Ryan, and i'm only thirteen...

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Well it's easy to pretend you're 16 when you're really 15 or even 14. I know I've done it.

[--ZeeMan--]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

Well it's easy to pretend you're 16 when you're really 15 or even 14. I know I've done it.

 

 

touche

 

 

anyways...yeah the movie industry needs to be changed, but i dont' know of any way to

[lukeiamyourdad]

I'm ok with the Canadian system. It's always a notch down from the US one. Somethings rated R in the US is only 13+ here or 16+.

 

Besides, Janet Jackson made no scandal here.

[MennoniteHobbit]

I don't really care about the rating system. I watch what I watch. No arguments. Besides- rent movies when they come out, no complaints about age/restriction. The rating system does not bother me.

[ShadowTemplar]

The rating system is so stupid and the ratings are so irregular that I simply stopped bothering with it.

[Kurgan]

I actually happen to agree with Roger Ebert's sensible proposal that the MPAA should keep the current rating's system but add a new one: "A" (Adults Only) which would be for 17 and older for graphic sex and/or violence.

 

The way it is now EVERY movie (except actual porn which doesn't get released in anything but smut theaters or on video) tops out at R, which is stupid.

 

In the past we had "X" but theaters associated that with porn, so they refused to show those films there, so they changed it to NC-17, same deal.

 

Theater owners of course need to cooperate.

 

So you'd have:

 

G: General Audiences

 

PG: Parental Guidance Suggested

 

PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May be Inappropriate for Person's Under 13.

 

R: Restricted. Persons under 17 Must be Accompanied by Parent or Guardian.

 

A: Adults Only. No One Under 17 Will Be Admitted.

 

...and porn can still be porn, since the vast majority isn't rated and isn't shown at mainstream theaters anyway.

 

 

The rating's (viewed positively) aren't about censorship, but serve a useful function for helping parents decide what films to allow their children to see, and also to get an idea of what kinds of content they may be viewing.

 

This way you can also decide whether or not it's a good idea to take grandma to see an "A" film or to see an "R" film with your kids.

 

With regards to home video, this is a parental policing issue, because obviously a kid could just watch his parent's movies at home (hopefully with their prior consent first). As to whether rental chains or stores enforce ID checking for adult materials, that's up to them. Ultimately it's the parent's choice, and like you say, some kids are more responsible than others, but this gives the consumer more information and allows for better choices to be made. One can't always preview everything before viewing it in the presense of kid's or giving them permission, so this is at least prior warning.

 

The main factor though is that the system has to be relavant. Right now everything gets R just about, whether its violence or sex, basically as if X (or NC-17) and R are smashed together. Sex usually gets harder ratings than violence though, and the A rating would allow flimmakers more freedom to make the films the way they want to and not be shut out of theaters because of taboos.

[--ZeeMan--]

Originally posted by Kurgan

...and porn can still be porn, since the vast majority isn't rated and isn't shown at mainstream theaters anyway.

 

 

so THAT'S why i dont' see any at my local cinemark

[toms]

I have big issues with the BBFC. Not because i think film censorship is a bad thing, but because they seem to be highly inconsistent, completely illogical and highly subjective in their decisions.

 

For some reason sex, nudity and bad language seem to warrant a high rating, but violence (surely much worse and more dangerous) seems fine.

 

FOr years the "dangerously immitable" rule meant stupid things like having all nunchaku scenes removes from all films (cos you might copy them and hurt yourself!!), but all the bits where you hit people or shoot them were fine. huh?

 

(They even cut the Ninja Turtle scene where he used a string of sausages in a nunchaku style????!!).

 

They seem to have relaxed a bit recently, but (maybe because i'm getting older and more conservative:( ) some of the recent decisions seem a bit weird to me. With the recent development of CGi we seem to be getting lots of films that are more violent, but nothing seems to get an 18 certificate unless it has nudity or swearing. No way was LOTR a pg!! Horror films with heads sliced in two get a 15.

 

But basically the BBFC seems to have abdicated most responsibility and decided to award EVERYTHING a 12A and let the parents decide.

[Doomie]

For some reason sex, nudity and bad language seem to warrant a high rating, but violence (surely much worse and more dangerous) seems fine.

Yes, that's pretty stupid. If young kids see violence they will try to imitate it, and if they keep seeing stuff like that they will grow up to be violent, while if they see sex (I'm not talking raping here, i'm talking about love) they won't hurt anyone. It's just how our socieity (sp?) has evolved that makes sex obscure and stuff, but if everyone watched porn instead of violence there would be less violence in the world. (but i won't support it, mind you. i just made an anti-starwars-porn thread.)

[jon_hill987]

I don't think that many people acctualy copy violent acts they see in films and on TV, but it is strange that (in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK) Violence is seen as acceptable whereas "sceens of a sexual nature" are not.

 

that said though, I have seen kids immitating stuff they saw on WWF or wotever its called now. but they soon grow out of that. after all, It hurts.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Apart from maybe incidents with a FEW children under 10, I've never actually seen or heard of anyone stupid enough to copy what they see on TV. The usual playground brawl doesn't count becuase there's nothing there that hasn't been done before films were even invented.

[rccar328]

What I find interesting is the labeling of the film ratings system as censorship...while they may keep some people out of R-rated movies, teenagers oftentimes can still get in, and you can always rent them from your local blockbuster anyway, so I don't see how it's censorship.

 

Personally, I appreciate the ratings system. I don't watch most R-rated movies (or PG-13, depending on why it got that rating) because I have no desire to see the nudity or hear the language.

 

I read an article a few weeks ago about a new DVD player coming out from Sony that would automatically skip sections of movies depicting graphic sex or violence...the article talked about how so many people in Hollywood were calling it "censorship"...Similar to the boy crying "wolf," if you ask me.

 

I wouldn't mind a DVD player that edits movies - I would've enjoyed the second Matrix movie that much more without the sex scene - it was totally unnecessary, and not something that I particularly cared to see. I'd even buy it on DVD if they sold a version edited for language & nudity.

 

The problem with Hollywood is that they assume that everyone wants to see sex & violence. In reality, they could make much more money making family movies - just look at the successes of Finding Nemo, Shrek, and The Lion King.

 

Nemo - $844,400,000

Shrek - $481,900,000

The Lion King - $767,900,000

 

The Matrix - $456,500,000

8 Mile - $215,300,000

American Pie - $234,800,000

[jon_hill987]

I Totaly agree with you about the matrix reloaded, that scene was unneccessary, and probably the most boring sex scene in any film ever, It adds nothing to the plot. mind you I think the whole jumping up and down bit was too long aswell, not my favorate part of the film.

 

and going with your how much money they make thing you missed Harry Potter, though I'm sure we will all agree that was only suitable for 6 yr olds, coz it was absolute (CENSORED).

[toms]

The ratings system SHOULDN'T be censorship, but unfortuantely it is.

 

It should just be an impartial guide to help people make decisions, but it is often subject to financial pressures and often causes studios (not always directors) to cut films to acheive a more profitable rating.

 

Film censors told Wes Craven to cut Scream because it was "too intense". huh? that is the job of a horror director, to make things that are intense.

 

Oddly, with the advent of the internet even the BBFC seem to have realised they are largely irrelevant, they now allow limited porn, make most films 12A so it is up to the parents to decide and impose fewer cuts (although headbuts still seemt to be taboo). THe internet and the ability to download or order movies/porn from other countries has made internal efforts fairly pointless.

 

----

As for violence, i don't believe the "people copy violence from films/games" arguement, except for kids (you grow out of it pretty quick), so i'd rather they made the violence an older rating, but the other stuff can be lower. In europe most films have nudity, but it isn't an issue.

 

I do think there is something to the continual exposure to violence reducing it's potency, but having never really experienced any real violence i can't tell if just because i can watch people being dismembered without any shock anymore menas i wouldn't be affeected by witnessing real violence. I think that probably has a lot more to do with how your brain is wired to feel empathy and remorse.

----

On a side note, have you guys caught the fuss about disney refusing to release and anti-bush Michael Moore Film (Farenheit 9/11). More disney censorship (on financial grounds again) or a clever way to get publicity by disney and/or michael moore?

[rccar328]

On a side note, have you guys caught the fuss about disney refusing to release and anti-bush Michael Moore Film (Farenheit 9/11). More disney censorship (on financial grounds again) or a clever way to get publicity by disney and/or michael moore?

Well, I'm not really one to complain about Michael Moore's latest idiotic Bush-bash-fest getting slowed up a bit, but I heard that Disney's excuse was that it made them appear "partisan."

 

 

I guess they should've thought of that before they paid for the film...........

[Master_Keralys]

I actually like the ratings system we have and agree with Kurgan on the A rating. I don't watch very many R movies, just because I'm not that interested - so it becomes a matter of information to the public, which I appreciate. Now, the fact of the matter is that, especially in American culture, we place a very high regard on keeping things appropriate for a given age level, and our cultures strictures about sexuality and violence - whatever your opinion on them - should be respected in general. Removing the MPAA system entirely would be the worst of ideas; it gives at least a general idea of the content... which is, trust me, very appreciated.

[lukeiamyourdad]

There can't be any universal rating system. Cultures are different.

 

Instead of a rating system that says nothing about the actual content, we could have some sort of warning like for video games.

We have the rating and then we have a small description of why like mild violence, language, etc.

 

It would be better then a simple "R". So what the hell does it mean? Is there nudity in there or violence? Or maybe both?

[El Sitherino]

I've seen lots of things in my life, while having seen lots of violent films, when you see someone shot in the face in real life, it's not like seeing it on a movie, you are shocked and very, very thrown by it.

I enjoyed harry potter by the way, and I'm 17 so... *shakes fist*

It's true kids movies make a lot more money, but that's because, who all goes to see kids movies? The ENTIRE family. who goes to see rated r movies, the teens and parents. It's not just about money, it's about entertaining the people you wish to entertain, and about sharing your vision and what you enjoy.

I enjoy mature movies, movies with violence, adult situations, whatever you want to call it, but i also enjoy comedy's and even many kids movies, hell I loved finding nemo.

 

I kind of fall under the japanese idea, sex isn't a big deal, taboo isn't really an issue with me. I plan on being open about sex with my kids... *shrugs*

[rccar328]

By the way...Michael Moore's allegations against Disney were a fraud for publicity.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

By the way...Michael Moore's allegations against Disney were a fraud for publicity.

 

While I agree that this is the likely intent, the link you provided did not demonstrate that with any empirical measure. In fact, one of the final sentances of that author said, "...publicity stunt, if that's what it is,..."

 

The only thing that this article demonstrates is that Moore knew before the post-production that Disney wouldn't release it. One could argue that his tactics are merely smart marketing. I thought Roger and Me was, perhaps, one of his better works to date, so I'd like to see what this latest film has to offer. But I also understand Disney's position... and Eisner isn't exactly on the best terms with his stockholders anyway.

 

I don't know all the details, but if Mirimax agreed to finance Moore and he put forth effort and time as well as personal investment to get the film done, it stands to reason that he'll want it released prior to the election in order to help influence the outcome.

 

Therefore, his marketing, even if a publicity stunt, seems fair and reasonable. Particularly since there is a distinct lack of media criticism of the Bush admin policies considering the amount of bad decisions it has made. Film censorship is just another form of media censorship, which the Bush admin has used to pressure journalists and, now possibly, corporate financers of film producers.